I stand by my original answer. Of course, the child says that the other party isn't putting ideas in it's head or promising things or anything of that sort.And it's probably saying how perfect things are with father (or mother) which may be true in the child's mind. It may find that one party is always allowing it to do things that the other forbids, or the other is the one who disciplines it or the first always takes to amusements or indulges its whims.And a child may say something it knows untrue, although it may not understand the significance or seriousness, and say bad things. Who knows? It's a child and what's more it's a child in a situation which is usually confusing to a child. A psychologist can say no more than that what the child told him or her, without other evidence to support him (not the other party's but something, some facts, which independently support the account). There's no fool- (or expert-) proof of whether a child is telling truth or fiction just from the child saying something and the court will not attach any weight to it. A statement " The child appeared truthful" or "to be telling the truth" is no help to any court, even if it were said by Sigmund Freud himself! And no expert can say "The child was truthful" or "was telling the truth" !
I very much doubt that the psychologist is being asked that question. He's being asked more general questions about how the child appears from a psychological standpoint, without attributing blame to one party or the other.The court may like to know whether the proceedings themselves or any conflict between the parties,, is causing the child severe stress or behavioural difficulties,for example